Hubble's deepest shot is a puzzle

BBC News snip:

Scientists studying the deepest picture of the Universe, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, have been left with a big poser: where are all the stars? The Ultra Deep Field is a view of one patch of sky built from 800 exposures.

The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

But the image's revelation that fewer stars than expected were being born at this time brings into question current ideas on cosmic evolution.

"Our results based on the Ultra Deep Field are very intriguing and quite a puzzle," says Dr Andrew Bunker, of Exeter University, UK, who led a team studying the new data. "They're certainly not what I expected, nor what most of the theorists in astrophysics expected."

More + pics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3680944.stm

and physics and all those fun sciences, but science always acts like the stuff they believe is TRUE instead of being THEORY. So here we have a whole bunch of theories that will all be upended. Yeah, it's Hegel's dialectic at work, I dig it. But I'm always tickled when big Science gets stumped cuz they have to redo all their assumptions, bwa ha ha ha! I wouldn't laugh so if they weren't so friggin' pompous all the time.

Look how long it took for them to acknowledge vitamins!!!!!!

Of course, it was better when they ignored them---now the world gov wants to outlaw them.

You make a theory. You perform an experiment to test the theory (e.g. get a Hubble image), you modify the theory if the results don't match.

What's this bullshit about pompousness and vitamins?

About Vitamins: For many years, the FDA and several other medical organizations conducted a well-financed campaign to convince people that by taking vitamins they were hurting themselves. (This is an ongoing project, but the FDA no longer supports it with tax money.)

For example: Based on a single physician's letter to a medical journal, ascorbic acid was adjudged to cause kidney stones. No scientific evidence was ever presented. One single anecdote was used to "debunk" hundreds of well-conducted scientific studies.

With the exception of a few rare conditions (like B6-induced reversable neuropathy), the vitamins turned out to be beneficial, or ineffective but benign.

About Pompousness: Many non-scientists use Science as their totem of authority in fallacious arguments. (As do some scientists, but most are keen enough to avoid that trap -- with the exception of many academic department heads and chairpersons.)

George Bush has evoked the authority of Science on many occasions to deny evidence of global warming, climate change, stem-cell biology, and other topics verboten in his pinched world-view.

Science does not require authority at all; it simply requires observation. When someone takes up Science as their sword and shield, the word "Pompous" is earned and the cry of "Bullshit" is deserved.

--bkl

At least the fat soluble vitamins like A, and B.

Vitamin C has been the source of a lot of debate. Particularly since Pauling, in his old age, advocated megadoses without any scientific studies to back up his claims. Pauling was famous for making hunches. Often he was extraordinarily correct, but that's not real science. In the case of vitamin C, it looks like he was wrong. There have been many studies since about whether megadoses of vitamin C are good, bad, or pointless. These studies seem to conflict, and would thus make the debate inconclusive.

You're example about Bush doesn't make a lot of sense. As you say, Bush isn't a scientist, and he argues against what a majority of scientists agree on.

What this has to do with some astronomers finding some unexpected data being pompous I haven't a clue.

...to make observation a priority over theory. For every theorist disappointed in their failure to predict, 10 maybe 100 scientists will be excited to work on the great mystery presented here in earnest.

IMO, it is the MBAs who generate a strong pomposity field. They would like you and I to think their technology and industry are the same as "science", and many people do believe this. A great many of them insist we take stock in the assumptions that support their faith in entropy-defying "magic hand" economics.

/Sarcasm

Here's a Hubble site you can download very high resoltion jpgs of the deep field:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/image/

Any updates on Hubble's fate? I haven't heard much lately beyond the robotic mission.

TIA